• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

I have a plan for a new tax!

independentusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
14,607
Reaction score
9,303
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It is simple. Every time we have one of these killings we tax the gun manufacturers who made the guns used in the shootings for all the costs of the investigations, the court costs and the cost of the funerals. It would not take a gun away from anyone, nor would it stop anyone from buying or making a weapon. I don't see it as being in any way violating the second Amendment. It is just like we did with the people who make cigarettes. We made them pay for the damage they caused by fining them, which in essence was a tax. If you create a dangerous product, you should pay for any damage it causes.
 
Cars kill more people, should they get taxed too?
 
Cars kill more people, should they get taxed too?
Cars are taxed. It's sometimes called a "titling tax" or "registration fee" and in other cases its called a sales tax. Unless you happen to maintain a car in a state that doesn't require one to have a license plate on car you use on public roads, you pay a tax on your car. And think of the ways in which car taxes are used to provide information that abets a variety of ends:
  • Car sellers use the tracking to identify the accident history of used cars.
  • Insurance companies use the registration information as a factor in determining one's auto insurance premium.
  • Law enforcement organizations and officers use it in the process of identifying and tracking down specific vehicles.
  • Some car owners use it to express their affinity for "this or that." (vanity plates)
  • As for more specific ways in which state governments use car tax revenues, you'll have to review the budget of whatever state interests you. I suspect that for some states car taxes/fees are classed as general fund revenue and as such fund all sorts of things, and in others the monies are classed as special fund revenues and are allocated to fairly specific programs.
Some states have additional taxes, beyond sales and/or registration and titling tax, associated with cars. For instance, VA counties and cities levy a personal property tax and for many residents, their car is the one thing they pay it on.
Insofar as taxes on cars are extant, the answer to your question necessarily must, insofar as insurance companies, most (if not all) state governments, many individuals and businesses are abetted in some way by the fact of cars being taxed, be resoundingly "yes."
 
Cars are taxed. It's sometimes called a "titling tax" or "registration fee" and in other cases its called a sales tax. Unless you happen to maintain a car in a state that doesn't require one to have a license plate on car you use on public roads, you pay a tax on your car. And think of the ways in which car taxes are used to provide information that abets a variety of ends:
  • Car sellers use the tracking to identify the accident history of used cars.
  • Insurance companies use the registration information as a factor in determining one's auto insurance premium.
  • Law enforcement organizations and officers use it in the process of identifying and tracking down specific vehicles.
  • Some car owners use it to express their affinity for "this or that." (vanity plates)
  • As for more specific ways in which state governments use car tax revenues, you'll have to review the budget of whatever state interests you. I suspect that for some states car taxes/fees are classed as general fund revenue and as such fund all sorts of things, and in others the monies are classed as special fund revenues and are allocated to fairly specific programs.
Some states have additional taxes, beyond sales and/or registration and titling tax, associated with cars. For instance, VA counties and cities levy a personal property tax and for many residents, their car is the one thing they pay it on.
Insofar as taxes on cars are extant, the answer to your question necessarily must, insofar as insurance companies, most (if not all) state governments, many individuals and businesses are abetted in some way by the fact of cars being taxed, be resoundingly "yes."

But are cars taxed to pay for the damage and court fees of the accidents?
 
It is simple. Every time we have one of these killings we tax the gun manufacturers who made the guns used in the shootings for all the costs of the investigations, the court costs and the cost of the funerals. It would not take a gun away from anyone, nor would it stop anyone from buying or making a weapon. I don't see it as being in any way violating the second Amendment. It is just like we did with the people who make cigarettes. We made them pay for the damage they caused by fining them, which in essence was a tax. If you create a dangerous product, you should pay for any damage it causes.

I see you have no training in LOGIC.
 
Cars kill more people, should they get taxed too?

Firearms are a weapon. Cars are not.
Firearms are, for the majority of the population, not essential to live. Cars are, for the majority of the population.
 
Explain further. A very substantial case is made. Do you disagree firearms are killing innocent people?

How much cole slaw can you fit in that HYPER BOWL you have there?

or...

You sure can catch a lot of catfish with all that BAIT you are throwing out here.
 
How much cole slaw can you fit in that HYPER BOWL you have there?

or...

You sure can catch a lot of catfish with all that BAIT you are throwing out here.

Very political answer. I ask a question and you do everything but answer it.
I will rephrase. Are firearms a threat to society?
 
Explain further. A very substantial case is made. Do you disagree firearms are killing innocent people?

(Here we go again.....)

A FIREARM never killed anyone in this case.

A PERSON loaded it,
A PERSON chambered a round,
A PERSON aimed it,
A PERSON pulled the trigger,

therefore....(stay with me here)...therefore

A PERSON did the killing.

You have no logic if you think anything else.
 
(Here we go again.....)

A FIREARM never killed anyone in this case.

A PERSON loaded it,
A PERSON chambered a round,
A PERSON aimed it,
A PERSON pulled the trigger,

therefore....(stay with me here)...therefore

A PERSON did the killing.

You have no logic if you think anything else.

This is not simply just about one occurrence it is about the whole gun control / gun debate issue. Here we ago again is what I say every single time a shooting occurs. The issue that gets talked about but never solved.

No doubt a person loaded, chambered a round, aimed it and pulled the trigger. However if the firearm wasn't present could they have "shot" someone??

If a person is killed in this way what would the death certificate state the cause of death was? A distinction must be drawn between an act with a firearm and without one, they are very different.
 
Very political answer. I ask a question and you do everything but answer it.
I will rephrase. Are firearms a threat to society?

I was a very BIASED and POLITICAL question.
You hate guns, and think they do the killing.
Completely silly.

I have a Japanese Arisaka Type 99 rifle leaning against the wall within arms reach of me.
It also has its bayonet fixed!

I will let you know when it jumps away from the wall and tries to run me through.

I will listen for the cry, " Banzai, you die Marine" as a warning.

According to your flawed logic it is the guns and only the guns that do the killing.
Human interaction with them has nothing to do with it.

Want some hyperbole?

Why do you love murderers so much you disavow their actions and blame it all on the weapons they use.

I already know the answer, BTW.
 
This is not simply just about one occurrence it is about the whole gun control / gun debate issue. Here we ago again is what I say every single time a shooting occurs. The issue that gets talked about but never solved.

No doubt a person loaded, chambered a round, aimed it and pulled the trigger. However if the firearm wasn't present could they have "shot" someone??

If a person is killed in this way what would the death certificate state the cause of death was? A distinction must be drawn between an act with a firearm and without one, they are very different.

This may upset your entire world, but FIREARMS are here to stay.
It is dumb to ask " What if...." type questions.
When you turn your thoughts to the real world and would like to debate real situations, I would enjoy a rational conversation with you.
but leave UTOPIA behind as i do not live there.

PV
 
I was a very BIASED and POLITICAL question.
You hate guns, and think they do the killing.
Completely silly.

I have a Japanese Arisaka Type 99 rifle leaning against the wall within arms reach of me.
It also has its bayonet fixed!

I will let you know when it jumps away from the wall and tries to run me through.

I will listen for the cry, " Banzai, you die Marine" as a warning.

It was quite a simple and straight forward question. One that is negated on a daily basis.

That is correct, I don't like firearms. No I am not disillusioned to think that firearms have arms and legs and walk around killing people, you are trying to misrepresent my point. The fact is a firearm being present adds to the likelihood, harm and chances of death than a person without one. A firearm is a weapon, not a necessity to life. Its completely silly that there are in excess of 100,000 casualties from firearms every year. But you assert my concern for this 'silly'....

Excellent. That does nothing more or less for me. Your humour is more or less quite deprivating.
 
Guns are all around.
Guns are everywhere.
Guns are NOT going away.

If someone threatens to kill you with one, then shoot them with yours and stop them.
This is how the situation has been resolved for hundreds of years.
 
It was quite a simple and straight forward question. One that is negated on a daily basis.

That is correct, I don't like firearms. No I am not disillusioned to think that firearms have arms and legs and walk around killing people, you are trying to misrepresent my point. The fact is a firearm being present adds to the likelihood, harm and chances of death than a person without one. A firearm is a weapon, not a necessity to life. Its completely silly that there are in excess of 100,000 casualties from firearms every year. But you assert my concern for this 'silly'....

Excellent. That does nothing more or less for me. Your humour is more or less quite deprivating.

I could already tell you hated firearms by your language.

Now, would you like to put aside our silliness and talk like grownups about this?

I will put aside my Banzai charging Arisaka
and you please put aside your "what if they did not exist" talk, and "The GUN did it".

With ll that silliness aside we can talk like rational people

You will find I agree with you on a lot of topics.
 
This may upset your entire world, but FIREARMS are here to stay.
It is dumb to ask " What if...." type questions.
When you turn your thoughts to the real world and would like to debate real situations, I would enjoy a rational conversation with you.
but leave UTOPIA behind as i do not live there.

PV

That is your view. I don't agree with your beliefs.

I find it quite dumb that nothing gets done about firearms. I find it dumb that the US is one of the only countries that has a constitutional right to bear arms. I find it dumb that the US has more guns than people. I find a lot of things quite dumb.

I can ask questions which require a quantitive figures. How many firearm homicides are there every year? How many suicides with a firearm are there each year?

So Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Italy, Britain aren't in the real world??? A rational conversation is not had if you keep your thoughts, ideas and perceptions exclusively to the USA.
 
I could already tell you hated firearms by your language.

Now, would you like to put aside our silliness and talk like grownups about this?

I will put aside my Banzai charging Arisaka
and you please put aside your "what if they did not exist" talk, and "The GUN did it".

With ll that silliness aside we can talk like rational people

You will find I agree with you on a lot of topics.

I am entitled, validated and rightfully allowed to dislike firearms. Just as you are entitled, validated and rightfully allowed to support them. There is nothing wrong with that and it doesn't make anyone a greater hero if they identify this from someones language.

I am speaking a logical, coherent manner that is putting forth relevant points. Points that have been applied to Australia, UK, Italy, China, Japan, New Zealand and many other nations. Are you claiming all of these countries perceptions and legislatively decisions to be childish??

Rationality is already present. You just don't like the points I put forth and claim them to me childish and irrelevant. Thus you should be able to negate them quite easily. Except your avoiding them.
 
This is not simply just about one occurrence it is about the whole gun control / gun debate issue. Here we ago again is what I say every single time a shooting occurs. The issue that gets talked about but never solved.

No doubt a person loaded, chambered a round, aimed it and pulled the trigger. However if the firearm wasn't present could they have "shot" someone??

If a person is killed in this way what would the death certificate state the cause of death was? A distinction must be drawn between an act with a firearm and without one, they are very different.

If there are humans there will be weapons designed or improvised it matters not. The responsibility always lies with the wielder of said arms. Further there is a 2nd Amendment issue as in the right to keep and bear said arms shall not be infringed. Whether firearms or other arms are necessary in your view is immaterial, people other than you do consider them to be and their views are the ones that count, not yours.
 
It is simple. Every time we have one of these killings we tax the gun manufacturers who made the guns used in the shootings for all the costs of the investigations, the court costs and the cost of the funerals. It would not take a gun away from anyone, nor would it stop anyone from buying or making a weapon. I don't see it as being in any way violating the second Amendment. It is just like we did with the people who make cigarettes. We made them pay for the damage they caused by fining them, which in essence was a tax. If you create a dangerous product, you should pay for any damage it causes.

Why are you picking on the gun manufacturers?

Tell me...if a person, in a fit of wild rage, stabs their lover 35 times with a butter knife...will you call for the silverware manufacturer to pay for "all the costs of the investigations, the court costs and the cost of the funerals"?

The fact is, ANYTHING can be a dangerous product...if used in a dangerous manner. On the other hand, like that butter knife, ANYTHING can be a useful tool...if used in a non-dangerous manner.

Someone here mentioned "logic". To that, I would add "reason".
 
It is simple. Every time we have one of these killings we tax the gun manufacturers who made the guns used in the shootings for all the costs of the investigations, the court costs and the cost of the funerals. It would not take a gun away from anyone, nor would it stop anyone from buying or making a weapon. I don't see it as being in any way violating the second Amendment. It is just like we did with the people who make cigarettes. We made them pay for the damage they caused by fining them, which in essence was a tax. If you create a dangerous product, you should pay for any damage it causes.

Except, of course, besides being really stupid, immoral, and ineffective, what you propose is also entirely illegal.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. The PLCAA is codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901-7903.
 
If there are humans there will be weapons designed or improvised it matters not. The responsibility always lies with the wielder of said arms. Further there is a 2nd Amendment issue as in the right to keep and bear said arms shall not be infringed. Whether firearms or other arms are necessary in your view is immaterial, people other than you do consider them to be and their views are the ones that count, not yours.

Firstly. A system of trust in humanity has quite clearly failed. No one can be trusted when it comes to the issue. Success has been proven in this areas in the UK, Australia, Japan, Italy, New Zealand and India.

I quite clearly understand individuals don't want to not have it infringed but tens of thousands who have been killed as a result of a firearm had their right to life infringed upon. Once that is taken you don't get a second chance. The point behind this is what is more valued the right to life of 33,000 or the right to bear arms??

So essentially your stating because you don't agree with my view you state it to be immaterial, a view which is held by a number of others in the US. My point is thousands are dying and nothing is done. Your point is there is a Second Amendment. I guess this is a question of value then.
 
Firstly. A system of trust in humanity has quite clearly failed. No one can be trusted when it comes to the issue. Success has been proven in this areas in the UK, Australia, Japan, Italy, New Zealand and India.

I quite clearly understand individuals don't want to not have it infringed but tens of thousands who have been killed as a result of a firearm had their right to life infringed upon. Once that is taken you don't get a second chance. The point behind this is what is more valued the right to life of 33,000 or the right to bear arms??

So essentially your stating because you don't agree with my view you state it to be immaterial, a view which is held by a number of others in the US. My point is thousands are dying and nothing is done. Your point is there is a Second Amendment. I guess this is a question of value then.

To wit people on this thread have already told you the responsibility for those deaths which you write of, belong wholly and exclusively to the individuals that pulled the trigger. Arms are inanimate objects. They must be used by a human being in order to work. As the people are the ones responsible for using their arms inappropriately, as they are any other inanimate object there is no need to ban them especially considering the fact they specifically protected under a constitutional amendment. The primary point being PEOPLE INFRINGE ON THE RIGHTS OF OTHER PEOPLE, inanimate objects cannot, hence your logic and argument are invalid.
 
To wit people on this thread have already told you the responsibility for those deaths which you write of, belong wholly and exclusively to the individuals that pulled the trigger. Arms are inanimate objects. They must be used by a human being in order to work. As the people are the ones responsible for using their arms inappropriately, as they are any other inanimate object there is no need to ban them especially considering the fact they specifically protected under a constitutional amendment. The primary point being PEOPLE INFRINGE ON THE RIGHTS OF OTHER PEOPLE, inanimate objects cannot, hence your logic and argument are invalid.

From your narrowed and quite skewed perception it might be invalid. However majority of the world and parts of the US believe it is validated.

1. You seem to lack the ability to draw a distinction between the damage an individual with a firearm can cause and an individual without one can cause. Additionally to further prove my point....a person who is killed by someone using a firearm...what would the cause of death be on their death certificate?

2. There is no doubt a level of responsibility. However if you actually want to put trust in individuals to be responsible you have a very skewed view on the true nature of the world. You place trust in people and you end up 123,000 casualties in a given year. You legislate and restrict gun usage to employment, shooting ranges and sports and implement more stringent policies relating to licensing, possession, carry and you have 1 mass shooting in 22 years as demonstrated by Australia. No mass shootings as demonstrated by Japan. THAT IS FACT. DENY IT AND IT UNDERPINS YOUR IGNORANCE.
 
Back
Top Bottom